February 25, 2005

The Gannon Scandal, Not Continued

Salon: See no Gannon, hear no Gannon, speak no Gannon. "It's stunning to me that there are questions about the independent press being undermined and the mainstream press doesn't seem that interested in it," says Joe Lockhart, who served as press secretary during President Clinton's second term. "People in the mainstream press have shrugged their shoulders and said, 'It's a whole lot of nothing.'"

Comments

Have you said a word about the iranian bloggers who have been condemned to 14, 3,5 years in jail, as reported by reporters without borders?
Does the blogoshere has one once of solidarity with those guys?
Just curious.

You mean Guckert is gay? I didn't know that -- I just knew he was a prostitute and working in one of the most secure locations in the USA under a phoney name, and that he managed to get credentialled under this phoney name even though he has no qualifications (other than an ability to plagarise) by some bigwigs at the WH. That doesn't disturb you at all?

1) Clearly partisan reporters from small, small news outlets have been a fixture in the WH press corps for years. They're there now and they always will be, and most in the WH PC recognize that in order for them to operate freely, the fringe elements need to be tolerated. That is the price the press pays for its freedom.

2) Members of the WH PC have been quoted as saying they didn't have that much trouble with Gannon. While he did toss out softball questions, he could also be very tough on the administration when it strayed from a hardline conservative agenda. Some members of the WH PC found that valuable and informative.

3) Once you introduce the element of background checks into the process of issuing press credentials, you are getting oh-so-close to the issue of issuing licenses to be reporters. SPJ and other trade associations have fought against licensing for decades. In fact, journalists have fought and won cases against police requiring a press pass to be at a crime scene. It would strike at the heart of the First Amendment to start doing FBI background checks on every reporter (cause if you do it on one, you've got to do it on all). If you at all believe that slippery slopes are possible, that has got to concern you. What's next, "piss in this bottle"? Where do you draw the line and who determines what is an acceptable background?

So, when the big media editor calls his WH reporter and says, "Hey, you think we should do a story on this," I imagine the standard response is, "no, this is a non-story." The WH PC just doesn't want to open this can of worms.

And I can't believe bloggers, who supposedly value the First Amendment, transparency, open government, equal access regardless of media stature, would want to see this issue go any further than it has (and it's probably gone too far already). Besides, if bloggers are upset with Gannon, where is the outrage from those same bloggers at some of the clearly partisan, hostile questions Helen Thomas has been asking for years?

It wrote:
"Do you really think that the gov't should be in the business of looking into a reporter's sex life?"

Staring a *business* where you offer yourself on the web as a male prostitute for $1200 a weekend isn't Guckert's private life, it is part of his *professional* life. Guckert's chosen job as a male prostitute directly before (and possibly concurrent with) his suddenly found career as a White House correspondent is very relevant. It shows that his non-existent credentials as a reporter are easily found with just a web search and that the White House had to have known that he was no more than a shill and had to actively break with normal standards to let him in on an ongoing basis. Guckert couldn't have even gotten a local city Press Parking Pass with his non-existent bona-fides, as I'm sure any working journalist can confirm.

It, your post shows you for what *you* are: an ideological shill. You are defending something that you clearly would have condemned if Guckert had been a liberal shill in the Clinton White House. Perhaps "It" is just another pseudonym for "Guckert"?

Howard Owens wrote
"Besides, if bloggers are upset with Gannon, where is the outrage from those same bloggers at some of the clearly partisan, hostile questions Helen Thomas has been asking for years?"

Asking *probing* questions is the *job* of the media. Helen Thomas was a fearless veteran who asked tough questions of both sides. The idea that you would compare Guckert to her shows your post to be insinsere. Right now, the Bush Administration has access so tightly controlled that the media are reluctant to risk losing the access they need for daily reporting by being tough on the Administration. I miss *real* White House press coverage.

Mark wrote:
"I don't know why the bigger bloggers, like Josh Marshall don't go down there and go the gaggle? Maybe it's because in the current anti-press environment nothing gets a real answer anyway?"

I'd be amazed if they gave a liberal blogger a day pass. I can't see them letting KOS or Atrios in, or even a respected veteran Journalist like Dan.

www.blog-awards.com Blog Awards is the competition which was created to collect more reviewed blogs from all over the world on the one place with a purpose to reward the best ones.
In contest, the best blogs are selected by another blogger in their reviews, number of clicks etc.
Besides competitors,the first 15th blogs from each category or country will be overlooked by professional commission.
The best ones, except the precious prizes of our sponsores, will get an icon which they may emphasize somewhere on their blog.

Howard Owens wrote: "Once you introduce the element of background checks into the process of issuing press credentials..." and "It would strike at the heart of the First Amendment to start doing FBI background checks on every reporter..."

Huh?

The White House is supposed to be one of the most secure buildings in the world. The President is supposed to be the best protected person in the world. The Secret Service is supposed to initiate an investigation of *anyone* that has *regular* access to the President of the United States. Any reporter (or anybody else for that matter) that has a "Hard Pass" into the White House on a regular basis, already has to go through an extensive FBI background check that is done at the behest of the Secret Service. When his Dad was President, Dubya had to go through a background check to get his pass. It can take months (especially if the White House doesn't want that reporter in the press room). Gannon/Guckert did not have a Hard Pass. He was given "Day Passes" by someone on the inside, on a regular basis, for months. Somebody was circumventing the security process to get him in. Somehow, I think that it's reasonable to consider that anyone that is involved in an ongoing criminal endevor (like prostitution, for instance) and using an alias should be banned from access to the President. This is a security breach of monumental proportions. Here's why: Whoever was granting a prostitute, who was using an assumed name, access to the White House (especially *this* White House) could possibly be blackmailed into granting access to someone even more unsavory. So the question still stands: Who was getting this yo-yo around the security procedures and why? ...And, more importantly, why is nobody asking that question?

Howard also wrote: "...who determines what is an acceptable background?"